DoD Implementation of NDAA 2012 (PL 112-81 ), Sec 808, Para ( c )(1) and ( c )(2)

[Vern Edwards 0]

I'm surprised. After all, the statute has "the force and effect of law." Then again, I'm not surprised at all.

DOD does not need clarification to prevent that kind of misinterpretation. It needs intelligent and literate men and women for its contracting corps. No amount of clarification would be enough to prevent the kind of stupidity that you describe.

[fieds32 0]

Vern,

Your posts seem to reflect an idealistic approach that every CO in every agency perfectly understands every piece of guidance that is given and implementation is always by the letter of the law. That has never been the case. While Infoseeker is a little abrasive, I think he captures exactly how this will be read, which is a mandate to use FY10 rates.

I can't necessarily blame the CO's on this one. There is certainly an R&D contract exception buried by reference in the law, but the law uses the 10 USC 235 definition of service contracts (which excludes R&D) and not the FAR Part 37 definition, which does not exclude R&D. So the CO's are getting guidance that simply says start with FY10 rates for service contracts over $10M, but no guidance that clarifies the specific defintion of service contract for them. CO's aren't going to dig that far into the implementing documentation to figure out what they need to do (nor should they).

I have a practical example. We are entering into negotiations on a contract that should easily meet the R&D exception. First Gov't offer includes FY10 rates (which I have no problem with as a starting point). After I explain the Gov'ts misinterpretation and hold our FY12/13 rates I was told there was no R&D exception and that the rates were non-negotiable. Pushback on my end resulted in the Colonel calling the General Manager of my company.

[Vern Edwards 0]

fieds32:

I don't think I ever said that every CO in every agency perfectly understands anything. In fact, I think I have been pretty consistent over the years in saying that some COs don't understand much of anything, much less understand anything perfectly. I don't think that I understand everything perfectly. In many cases, there is no perfect understanding to be

I am idealistic in thinking that more COs ought to understand more things better. I think that should be the training goal. But I don't think the Sec. 808 memo or Sec. 808 itself is a crisis or as big a problem as some make it out to be, but I'll be the first to admit that many COs will get it wrong.

Vern

[Guest Infoseeker]

If I am understanding Vern's thinking -- COs are dumb and they need very dumb, incorrect, vague memos from their leaders to get them to think.

The bottom line is that when this thread started, everyone should have supported that the misguided memo is insane and foolish and the subject would be over. Two to three responses and the thread ends. It would have served its purpose in bringing to light this insane policy so that the field would not be blindsided when industry calls and mentions this ridiculous policy.

The home page of WIFCON is incredible with the summarizations of the articles and the other valuable pieces of information. I assumed that because the Home Page is so incredible, I assumed that the forum was equally of high quality. It is not, it is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual jokers that are out of touch with how things work. This forum mirrors the current state of this country's procurement abilities - broken.

[Vern Edwards 0]

[rafieldjr 0]

. . . Aaand Vern furnishes the image to go next to "pseudo-intellectual joker" in the dictionary. Laugh if you want Vern, but Infoseeker's depiction of the emperor with no clothes is pretty dead-on. Maybe some time out of the classroom and in the trenches for a reality check is in order.

When I came here as a new participant, it was with the honest belief that I would find seasoned, thoughtful analysts of the acquisition art with whom I could converse on a patently defective piece of legislation and companion regulation. The idea was to put heads together on damage control, as well as perhaps generate a head of steam of rational thought that might result in a correction of the big goof. Instead, I found cheerleaders for a broken system, defensive bureaucrats, and self-satisfied masters of the gratuitous slur . . . and a few honest souls. I was actually taken aback by the haughty and sneery reception. Took a few iterations to get acculturated. Got there, 'though.

Guess I'll put the question to Facebook next time. The results couldn't be any worse.

[Vern Edwards 0]

rafieldjr:

You and Infoseeker are essentially complaining that not everyone agrees with you. Because they don't, you say that you are not finding seasoned, thoughtful analysis of the acquisition art at Wifcon Forum. That's the extent of your complaint. So if people have a different point of view they are pseudo-intellectuals? What a crock.

I have tried more than once to take an analytical approach to both the statute and the regulation, only to have you and your buddy return to rant some more. You didn't come here to analyze. You don't want to think it through. You don't want to find a way to deal with it. You want a sympathetic audience for your whining.

You are not contributing to solutions. You are part of the problem. Complaining does not help. It's pointless and it hurts morale. Nothing good comes from it, except the self-satisfaction of getting it off your chest. How does it help your fellow contract specialists?

If you don't like the quality of the postings at Wifcon Forum you can stay away. Facebook will be glad to have you.

[LorenaCC 0]

Did anyone see this? http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003691-12-DPAP.pdf

DPAP rescinded the Class Deviation and issued another one yesterday.

[Vern Edwards 0]

Now there are eight pages instead of one. Note that the guidance does not apply just to contracts for the same or similar services.

Given the level of anger exhibited in this thread in reaction to the first memo, some folks had better be on watch for the possibility of workplace violence.

[dcarver 0]

Now there are eight pages instead of one. Note that the guidance does not apply just to contracts for the same or similar services. Given the level of anger exhibited in this thread in reaction to the first memo, some folks had better be on watch for the possibility of workplace violence.

This is what happens when people can't read and ask questions about how to implement it.

It still stands though, you are really only truly limited to not exceeding the cost of 2010 spending on the same or similar procurements. The limitation on what your negotiation objective is, well, a waste of time. Nothing binds you to your negotiation objective, so I'm not sure in the point of it other than to start negotiations on the Government end at a lower number in hopes of achieving a lower overall number.

[Vern Edwards 0]

dcarver:

I think you nailed it. At least for now.

[rafieldjr 0]

Well, "for now" has expired, Vern. Industry has made a motion to AT&L to reconsider --

Contractors complain about Pentagon limits on labor rates

http://cdn.govexec.c...t/092012cc1.pdf

Just a bunch of whiners, 350 of them, I guess . . .

[Vern Edwards 0]

Meh.

Note that they're not complaining about the statute, but about the implementation. The letter is not addressed to Congress; it's addressed to Kendall. With guys like you doing the implementing, I'm not surprised at that complaint. Who can blame them?